Tuesday, May 11, 2010
'Oh how the mighty have fallen!'
The protagonist in the movie 'Trading Places', Winthorp, comes from a background of priveledge and wealth. His downfall comes swiftly, and he struggles to get a handle on his life. His new reality, his new clothes, the way he is treated are all a shock to him. Should he be treated differently because he comes from wealth? How would the Talmud's concept of Kavod address this problem? Is it too much to ask the community to support a person who has suffered misfortune according to the means they are accustomed to? Blog it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe that it is NOT to much to ask a community to help someone who has just suffered misfortune, however only for a certain period of time. Similarly to the rules in Judaism in accordance to when someone has passed away. One must mourn for (I believe) one month and have the community and friends help the grieving person through the process of moving on. after that month period it is required that the person then try and move on. I believe that the same or similar procedure should also apply, help the person get back up on their feet again and establish a new life and then set them free and put it in their own hands to make the most of it. Similarly as to what the prostitute in the movie (don’t remember her name) tried to do for Winthorp. Addressing the question as to weather or not the person should be treated differently because of his or her wealth, no I believe they should not be treated differently unless given a reason to be. If the needy person is clearly on drugs or some performance altering drug which is influencing him or her to act strangely or questionably, yes I believe that person should be greatly avoided and treated differently because it is his or her decision to go about taking drugs and not trying to face the situation and make the most of it.
ReplyDelete-Florencia Hasson
I believe that the amount of support given by the community to a person who has fallen from wealth depends on how the person has become poor. If the person became poor because they have a drug addiction and they refuse to get help causing them to throw away their life, why should the community help support that person now that he is at the bottom of his spiral? I do believe the community should help him get back on his feet but it is not the job of the community to feed his addiction. On the other hand, if a person is really sick and cannot work, and they lose their job and become poor through the inability to work, then it makes sense that the community would help support that person enough so he can support himself even if he is unable to work. To sum it up, the community should not be responsible to help get somebody back to the wealth they once had if they lost their statues because of negligence.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Grant that the support given by the community depends on the situation, and every situation is different. I don’t think, however, that the help that a person should receive should be based on their kavod (if in this case kavod means wealth, or past wealth). For example, families are given financial aid at JCHS to help cover the cost of tuition. If someone used to have a lot of money, and now doesn’t due to reasons that aren’t their fault, should they be given more financial aid than someone who has the same amount of money as the other person now, but didn’t have a lot before? No. This would not be fair. I think that people in the same financial situation should be given the same amount, regardless of their past or anything else. Similarly, people should receive the same amount of help from the community, regardless of their kavod, if kavod means wealth.
ReplyDeleteAs we know, kavod can be translated in many ways. What if we are talking about kavod meaning something else besides wealth? What if kavod means generosity? If there was a person who used to have a lot of money, and donated the maximum 20% of their income to Tzedakah for years, and then lost money due to the current economic crisis, and is now is in need of help from the community, do they deserve more help than an average person who donated the required 10%, but couldn’t help the community as much because they didn’t make as much money?
i don't think he should be treated differently or better just because he comes from a wealthier background. yes it may be more of a shock to him because he isn't used to being treated like this but doesn't mean he deserves better treatment.
ReplyDeletethe talmud might say that his Kavod (dignity) plays a big role in how he is to be treated. since he used to be rich, his dignity would be much high compared to some one who was used to being poor. That they should treat him well, so as to treat him with the kavod he used to have. like treating the bride to be (that is moving into the husbands house) with the Kavod she has.
in my opinion it should be how much respect he deserves. Dignity shouldn't be measured frm how wealthy you are or used to be it should be measured more in how much you give or your personality towards others. something more deep than material things.
I forward Maya's point, which is the following; one should not be treated differently as a direct result of social status (wealth, career, family reputation etc.) because at the end of the day, we are all only people . . . and people only. Why should one whom comes from a family with an abundance of wealth and prosperity, be treated in a more respectful and dignified manner? If one uses the defense, “because the rich man will have a more difficult time making the transition” . . . then I believe that they are mistaken. Now I do recognize that every situation is vastly different, but in the following explanation I will only be addressing pro-case of the majority. Now, one who is born into a wealthy family has much more opportunity in life than someone who is born into a poor family. So at stage one, a wealthy person has an advantage over a poor person. So in Winthorp’s case, it is fair to conclude that he had (at stage one) an advantage over the poor. But now that the tables have turned, and he is going to be forced to survive in the same situation that he was dominating not too long ago. The Talmud’s approach towards kavod would address this problem in an extensively different manner. (Paraphrased) “הם מספקים לה לפי כבודה” (Mishnah Ketubot 6:3). Here we learn that, according to the Talmud, we do provide for people according to their honor.
ReplyDeleteIs it too much to ask the community to support a person who has suffered misfortune according to the means they are accustomed to? I believe that it is not too much to ask the community to support an individual, disregarding what they are accustomed to. I feel this is true because, as I said before, we are all people at the end of the day; whether be it poor, rich, Asian, Jewish, or even hungry, we should learn to set aside our differences and accept our similarities. To answer Grant’s question: “If the person became poor because they have a drug addiction and they refuse to get help causing them to throw away their life, why should the community help support that person now that he is at the bottom of his spiral?” The community no matter the circumstances should be obligated to at least make an effort toward rehabilitating the person, because after all, someone on drugs does not have very good judgement do they?
In summarization, as Jews we should be required to support anyone who needs help, and the amount/quality in which we help that person should not be a dependent factor according to one’s honor.
Although he may be wealthy, i don't think that the treatment of people should be decided based on their status and wealth. We are all people, and should all be treated the same way. This brings me to the question about kavod. Based on what i said above, it is the same situation. If kavod here means wealth, then the person should not be given more because he was wealthier. That would simply not be fair. According to the Talmud we give according to kavod. Meaning, if someone had more wealth, they have more kavod, and therefore we give them more. Though this is not realistic. A community should not be required to provide someone with the money that they previously had because in this case it would be millions of dollars and giving that amount of money would cause the community to lose all their money. Though on the other hand if the beggar previously came from a very poor household, and never had much, then it is realistic to give that person what he had. Because it's not much at all and it would barely affect the community in their own financial situations. So when giving money, it really depends on the person who you are giving it to.
ReplyDeleteAs we learned in class, the Talmud states that a person should be judged differently based on their wealth. Since this person was wealthy, when he asks for help from the community he should receive a greater amount of aid because he has been accustomed to a privileged life. We learned this from Hillel the elder story. I personally disagree with this statement becuase if you focus on one former wealthy person then the Tzedakah committee will not have enough money for others who also need money to survive. I believe everyone should receive the same amount no matter whether they were rich or still poor.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Maya's belief that dignity shouldn't be measured by your wealth, but by your kindness towards others. In Deuteronomy 28, it states that those who follow God and His ways will be rewarded, then listing the various rewards one receives. It also says that those who act against God will be punished, and the majority of the chapter goes on to describe the extensive list of punishments. Obviously, there is quite an emphasis on punishing the wicked. The community provides for a poor person according to his honor, so perhaps a righteous poor person who was recently wealthy would be provided with what he was previously accustomed to as a reward for his piety. (Although, one could argue, "Why would God take away his wealth in the first place if he was a pious person?" Maybe to give his community the opportunity to provide for one another and grow a sense of unity, as opposed to attachments to material objects.) Adversely, a sinful poor person who was recently wealthy might not receive appropriate aid from the community as part of his punishment for his wickedness. With such emphasis in the Torah put on punishing the wicked, it doesn't seem logical that one whose honor (when measured in kindness) is low would be rewarded and provided for.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all of the statements about how a person who becomes poor should be treated equally with other poor people by their community. However, what about the case of when a poor person becomes wealthy? We see from the movie that that also isn't easy to have the reverse experience. Should they still be treated as though they were poor? Or, if someone somehow won the lottery, and they had no kavod (honor), would they be treated as though they have kavod, even if they were a wicked person and should have been punished according to the Torah? I think this is further evidence that one should be treated according to how they treat others.
ReplyDeleteAnna Brodski
ReplyDeleteIn life every moment counts, and at every moment the person passing you on the street, the person sitting next to you on the bus and the friend you see every day at school has formed an opinion about you. Weather it was an opinion formed by years of friendship or one of simple coexistence, an opinion has been formed which is tremendously hard to change. The one I want to focus on is the relationship that occurs in moments, where someone makes their mind up about you by your appearance and your conduct with others, this only takes a few seconds. If you are wearing baggy, dirty clothing, and you look poor, what you were maybe a day ago doesn’t matter, what matters is now. I feel as though everyone who is down on their luck should be treated the same way. The Talmud, on the other hand, has a different idea pertaining to this issue, as we learned before, Rabbi Hilllel believes that everything should be done to support a person who is down on their luck to the status they were at before, however I strongly disagree with this simply because it is impossible and impractical. It is unlikely that the person will ever regain such wealth as before and the longer the community keeps the person on such a pedestal it will be harder for them to adjust to a different inevitable life.
In response to Tina:
The % you donate is relative to how much you make, so even if the wealthier person was donating 20% and the average person would donate the same 20%, their donates would be different amounts of money. Thus, one can argue that everyone can afford to donate the maximum amount of money, because rather than being a number, it is a percent. My opinion is that the maximum was set in for a reason, an assumption was made that 20% was a reasonable amount, that could be afforded by all. Therefore, the person who donated a lower percentage of his income stands at a lower precedent than a person who donated the maximum percentage of his income. In this case the question is not one of wealth vs. poverty, it is, greed vs. openhandedness.
I do not think he should be treated differently just because he comes from wealth. We should all be treated with equal rights, regardless of your wealth. I think by Winthorp being treated like a poor man, it made him have a completely different outlook on life, and really appreciate what he had. I find it interesting how no one in the movie believes the poor person, and the wealthier one is assumed to always be the one telling the truth. I don’t think the concept of Kavod could address this problem. The whole concept of the movie is to show wealth verses poverty, the different lifestyles , reactions from other people, and influence on society, etc. so if the concept of Kavod was being used here, it wouldn’t teach Winthorp a lesson at all, and he would still be getting what he wanted. In a way I believe it is a learning experience which could in the end benefit not only himself but others around him
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Grant said, if one’s downfall was due to their own actions, then I don’t think they should be supported by the community as much, as oppose to if their downfall was due to plain misfortune. However, the type of support matters in this case. If one was to lose everything due to drug and alcohol abuse-like Grant said- than I do not believe the community should provide him/her with money, or things that could be bad for that person, but if it was to help fix the problem, I think that it would be acceptable for the community to help out.
I believe that one should always has a way to redeem themselves with the help of the community. However, one does not need to be returned to a life of opulence, nor struggle, weather that life is familiar to them or not. There should be a common sense amount of help, combining what one both needs and wants, compounded with the subject's desire to advance and become self sustainable. This way one can be gradually pushed into help and gradually made to be able to help himself.
ReplyDeleteAnd if the person is unwilling to redeem himself, than there is not much that a community can do for him. You can't help someone who does not want to be helped.
Depending on what exactly is meant by "a person unwilling to redeem himself", the Talmud would disagree with Elijah P's opinion that the community shouldn't help someone who doesn't want to be helped from the Tzedakkah fund. In Ketuvot 67 it teaches that "if he has no means and does not wish to be maintained [out of the poor funds] he is told, 'Bring a pledge and you will receive [a loan]' in order to raise thereby his [drooping] spirit." Becoming poor and living a life of poverty is a heavy burden to bear. Many people become very ashamed of the state they are living in (as seen by Winthorp's actions in the movie 'Trading Places') and don't want to be treated as a helpless, unfortunate beggar. This is what the Talmud is getting at: if the person doesn't want to be given a donation from the Tzeddakah fund because they don't want to be treated as a poor person, then they should be given a loan.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Talmud, if this man (Winthorp) were an orphan, he would be supported by his community, and given enough money to make him feel as he did before. However, in this case he was extremely wealthy, how could they ever make up for what he has lost? Also, is it fair that another person who maybe didn’t come from such a great background shouldn’t be given the same amount? For example, if Winthorp were to go to the Tzedakah collectors and ask for money, and Eddy Murphy were to go to the Tzedakah collectors asking for money, shouldn’t they be given the same amount. In my opinion, yes, I think there should be a set amount that is given to each person. Since most likely none of us abide by these rules and standards, we find people on the streets everywhere we go because they are not given too by their community. We do not give to that homeless man asking for money every time we pass the Bart station, for these poor people who don’t have a home or community, we are them.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the question “Is it too much to ask the community to support a person who has suffered misfortune according to the means they are accustomed to?”
ReplyDeleteI don’t think it is too much to ask if the Tzedakah fund has more than enough provisions for everyone else.
In previous Gemaras and Mishnahs that we’ve done, the rabbis have discussed priority. For example, orphan girls are provided for before orphan boys because it is more customary for boys to “return to the doors.” This situation is another place where priority comes into play. I think that the basic needs of everyone else should be taken care of, and then if there is left over, then sure, they can provide for this person as they are accustomed to.
Although I think it would be okay for them to do this, and there is definitely reason behind it, I personally believe that, like other people have stated, they should provide more for the less fortunate so they can experience living life with more luxuries.
This movie has actually changed my opinion about what the Talmud means by “Kavod”. In an earlier post, I said that I believe “Kavod” means wealth. I now think that “Kavod” actually means honor. I believe it means it on a basic level. If you just see someone on the street, you do not know whether or not that person is honorable. All you know is whether or not they seem honorable from their first impression. If a homeless man comes and asks you nicely for money with a “please” and a “thank you”, you are more likely to give them money then someone who says “got any spare change”. We can see that this applies in the movie. The prostitute did not help out Winthorp until he stopped complaining about his situation for a moment and asked her from his heart to help him. I believe a community should help a homeless man from a wealthy background until; they learn how to be humble and learn how to fend for themselves better. If they are always provided for, they will never learn how to be a self-reliant person. It will end up hurting them more in the end because they will not have the knowledge of how to care of themselves successfully.
ReplyDeleteThe way I see it, a person's Kavod should not be judged on how rich they are, or how many things they own, but by how gracious and good they were. Obviously this is debatable in Talmudic terms, which seems to lean more towards a person's wealth, but even then it could still be about the person's character. In the movie, Dan Aykroyd's character was a... pompous fart. If you will. He was snotty, self righteous, arrogant, and mean, but he was also wealthy beyond and arguable point. In my book, prior wealth would have nothing to do with how much he can get if he suddenly became poor. Now unfortunately a little more then usual might be necessary if the Tzedakkah people wish to keep him sane and alive (reference to the scene where he tries to kill himself). If I had a choice in the matter, he would get a smaller amount then someone else who acted like the Disney character Aladdin. Aladdin may have been incredibly poor, but he still have kind and gave what he could to those less fortunate then him. The reason I would give the proposed Aladdin more, is not only for his character, but his kindness. I know if I gave him more money then Winthrop, he would use it to help others, while if I gave more money to Winthrop, he would probably spend it on a vase or something stupid and non-essential like that. That is my definition of Kavod, and I now sure that in this situation, it would be the Talmud's too.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Maya, Max, Ami, Amir and Jael in that the expectations of the Tzedakah, or community, to be able to provide for a recently broke, once wealthy, privileged person, is somewhat impractical. Hypothetically, the idea is good. An analogy of this situation is video game. Some games allow players to save their progress, or have check points throughout the game. This ensures them that, should something happen such as their game station battery dying, or pressing the wrong control, the player will not have to start anew. Relating this back to real life, this rule or guideline, would do just about the same thing. The only difference being, there are a limited number of "check points" that the game can hand out.
ReplyDeleteThis guideline would make it impossible for people to move down in the social latter, and only move up. Of course this is ideal in that, everyone could be happy and rich, however there are limited resources and limited money in the world. It's impossible for everyone to maintain and move up on the social latter without the value of currency, or objects (that the Tzedakah is providing for them) will lose value. Similarly to the example Rabbi Goodman gave A block regarding baseball cards. The more that are made, the more people that can own them, however the less that are made, then less people own them. The up side of producing more cards, is that it will give everyone an equal opportunity to go out and buy the card. The up side of producing only a few, is that because they are then rare, they are worth more. However let's focus on the "if more are produced" aspect of this analogy. If more are produced, more people, as I said, will have the opportunity to buy them, and they therefore will be less rare, and cost less. This is the same with every item or form of currency that the "recently broke, once rich person" would be given.
In conclusion, I agree with the concept of the law. It would be nice if everything in life was reliable or "wealth insurance" existed, however it is simply impractical and the necessary resources needed are unrealistic. Thus, I think it's important to bare in mind that while it is tragic when people find themselves in situations similar to Winthorps, the unjust aspect of life is something we must learn to live with.
It's an unreasonable burden to put on the community to ask them to subsidize a rich man's lifestyle once he is in the aptly named "poor-house".
ReplyDeleteHowever, we do see in the movie that bad things can happen when someone falls from a life of luxury into abject poverty. So what to do?
Mind should be paid to the fact that this person will be going through culture shock, and steps should be taken to ease the blow. This does not mean that they should get more food, nicer clothes, or a nicer place to live. But they should be treated as if they are a new member of the lower-class community. As if they have moved to the town and need a job and a place to stay. In that sense their treatment, at the start, will be different from the other poor people. That's what should be done with them for two reasons.
1) If we soften their blow they will be likely to be able to contribute back to the community.
2) If we do nothing they will become more a drag on society. They might turn to stealing or harassing others which will be good for nobody.
So yes, special attention should be paid to someone who has fallen from a life of luxury, that being said, THEY CANNOT RECEIVE SIGNIFICANT BETTER TREATMENT OVER THE LONG RUN. If nothing else this is not something that is acceptable because of the deep resentment that it would engender from the rest of society.
The outrage would be tremendous if bankers responsible for the recession wound up at the food bank and they got the nicest food there because that's what they were used to eating. People would be incensed. They have no more claim to the food than anyone, and in fact, they have already enjoyed the nicest things, so maybe they have even less claim. But it would be perfectly appropriate for the food bank staff to spend a little time explaining to a former hedge fund manager who was used to having his meals prepared for him, how to cook the food he was getting.
That is how we should treat the rich who fall into poverty: With understanding, compassion and hospitality in order to cushion their blow, but nothing more.
I agree with some of the things that people have said. Although I think it doesn't so much matter how they became poor but more on what they did when they were wealthy. If a person who has a lot of wealth shares it with the community and helps those who are less fortunate then I believe that they should be helped by the community. But if you have a person like Winthorp who doesn't I've back to the community and in some ways looks down on others then why should they be helped? You cant expect to not give back when your on top but to have other help you when your on the bottom. The quote "Treat others the way you want to be treated" really relates. I think if Winthorp had helped those less fortunate when he was rich then the community should give back and help him because he's done a lot with them. The community should help those who need it and those who help others no matter how much money they have before helping those who don't care about the outcome of others.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with Arno. Softening the blow would be the most beneficial to everyone involved. First of all this would not require extra food or supplies used for the newly poor man so it would not affect the other poor people. This is a big deal because I firmly believe that people of the same class should be for the most part given the same amount of tzedakah funds. Secondly, this teaches the rich man a new life style so he can learn to survive easier, without needing as much money and food.
ReplyDeleteMost rich people become rich because they are very knowledgeable people at what they do. Yes, the situation helps them significantly, but unlike Winthrope, most people do not get rich just by talking fancy. For example, a very skillful doctor who got on an alcohol addiction and lost his job because of it still retains his skills. If he survives for a year or so in the poor environment and kicks his alcohol addiction, he will be able to find a job as a doctor very soon. Then he wont need any tzedakah at all and instead will be giving back to the poor. In fact, he would hopefully learn to sympathize with those who are in a poor situation, and start giving tzedakah a lot more than before.
I think that if, theoretically, people knew what had happened to Winthrop, (or a wealthy person who suddenly became poor because of some accident) then they should treat him with the respect he deserves, and give him according to what he is accustomed to. Well, maybe not exactly what he is accustomed to, because I don’t think that the community should be responsible for giving the poor the highest standards that they are used to, but in my opinion, they should give the poor what they need, and if the community has enough money to comfortably give them more, then they should, as long as it does not affect the rest of the people negatively. But the problem is, that most people will not usually ask the poor person what they are used to. In fact, if the poor person specifies what they want, instead of taking whatever they can get, that would make most people think twice about whether or not that person is actually poor and needs to be provided for. I think the Talmud is showing us the ideal way of treating the less fortunate, but in reality, most people would not do that, and the Jews who do not study the Talmud/don’t follow it, wouldn’t even know about this concept.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with many of the people who said that the poor should be treated equally. We don't know the reason why they became poor' maybe they were born into a poor family, maybe they could not be supported by their father, or maybe, like in the movie, they became poor due to an accident, or someone else's actions. I think that the people should be treated according to their Kavod, but not according to what Kavod is in the Talmud. If Kavod means dignity, I strongly disagree that a person's dignity is measured by their wealth. I think that a person's dignity is really about who that person is as a human being, is he kind, is he selfless, is he a good person. Also, I think that knowing the reason somebody became poor is important as well. Obviously, people should not be expected to question each homeless person before they give them money/food, but theoretically, the reason they became poor would change the way we see their Kavod. For example, we would probably be more generous in giving tzedakah to somebody who was a good person and lost everything due to some unfortunate accident, than a person who always did bad things, maybe got thrown in jail for it, and then lost everything because he was using drugs. Although nature and nurture plays an important role in this case, I still think that, even though it may sound cruel, we should let natural selection take place.
ReplyDeleteTo add to Irina’s point, everyone does need help no matter what state they are in or how they got there, but maybe in different ways. A person that was wealthy and then lost everything that they had because of an unfortunate accident obviously will have the same skills that they had before the accident (like Eric said). These people are simply in need of money or a place to stay for a while so that they can get back on to their feet. On the contrary, people that become poor because of bad decisions require much more effort. They need to be able to sustain the lives that you create for them with your tzedakah rather than revisit their lives they had before you helped them. Also, they need to know what to do with the money that they are given and how to sustain a job or be taught any type of skill. So I disagree with what has been said previously in this blog, that someone who has come from a life of luxury should be paid special attention to because they know what to do with the money they are given. I believe it is more important to help the ones who have not come from a life of luxury first because it is much harder for them to start a life that they have never experienced.
ReplyDeleteHamilton Family Center provides this separate kind of help for any different kind of person in need. For someone who is just in need of emergency shelter (possibly someone who has originally come from luxury) and just needs a place to stay while they figure it out. They also provide a more intensive transitional housing program that provides on-site apartments for up to 18 months to families identified as being at high risk for chronic homelessness to “identify and begin to address the multiple barriers and factors that contribute to their homelessness.” This program also helps people to learn life skills so that once they leave they’ll be able to continue into a new life, similar to what I wrote in my blog.
http://hamiltonfamilycenter.org/what-we-do/
I would like to stress both Grants and Ami's opinions and ideas. I agree with both of these. This is a tough matter that has many different variables, so it is hard to pin point an exact answer for something so complex. I agree with Grant in that it matters how they came about not having enough money to pay for themselves and becoming poor, if we had to judge giving money by their former status.. which I believe shouldn't happen. So I agree with Ami much more, the fact that Winthorp lost everything of his very suddenly, is extremely unfortunate and I feel that he should be taken in and provided for. But I do not think that he should be provided for, with the amont that he used to be. Its like saying someone who suddenly loses everything today, and it is not even there faul, that they should be provided for like they used to be. Unfortunate things happen that we can only hope doenst happen to us, but sometimes it does, and we dont expect it, but I don't think it is right to say that even if bad things happen to you, you will be completely fine, no.. you take your hits and will get the right amount of support to get back on your feet.
ReplyDelete